Conversation
|
Hello, I am a new contributor 👋, let me explain, what I did an why. The issue popped up through https://stackoverflow.com/questions/73901723. After some tests I found out that the issue did surprisingly not occur in combination with Unfortunately the change made In total I tried to make the change as unobtrusive as possible. |
Ensure the order of calls to Binder.bind(...) in combination with @ does not affect whether classes are bound explicitly or with jIT binding. Signed-off-by: Harald Fassler <harald.fassler+9974@gmail.com>
a5ac93b to
ef12b2f
Compare
|
Thank you for contributing this, @nineninesevenfour ! The change is in a somewhat tricky area of the code that I wrote many many years ago, so I will review it more closely next week and potentially tweak it a bit before submitting the fix. |
…tedBy. Instead, defer it like a normal bind(X.class).to(Y.class) does. This ensures that later bindings of Y are used. Much thanks goes to @nineninesevenfour for their investigation (in #1650), which made fixing this much easier. Fixes #700 and fixes #1650. PiperOrigin-RevId: 527044205
Ensure the order of calls to Binder.bind(...) in combination with @ does not affect whether classes are bound explicitly or with jIT binding.
Signed-off-by: Harald Fassler harald.fassler+9974@gmail.com